You can't use any of it commercially. Nothing within is under an acceptable software license (nor an open source license, nor a free software license). Advanced warning.
You are talking about the models, right? If you train your own model on your own data without transfer learning (or with transfer learning from a liberally licensed third party model once those exist) then you can do whatever you want to with your model, no?
Computer-generated artifacts are non-copyrightable. This is not the problem. (That said, as the law is written, no binary should be, but we already threw that baby out with the bathwater.)
The problem is that the software is not free software, but encourages you to stop using its free predecessors and competition sneakily.
Or it’s just a paranoia and they plan to license this to non-free use after a period of testing, leaving non-commercial use for those who want to play with it. That is basically what every non-free software does except the commercial support is not yet provided.
Also, I second the question about free predecessors/competition, not to argue or compare, but out of pure curiosity.
I’m not sure I understand your claim, why is this encouraging anyone to stop using any competition? The license says plainly it’s not for commercial use, what’s so sneaky?
What do you define as free software? This software is open source, always free as in beer, and free as in freedom for research and evaluation purposes (and seems fairly permissive to researchers…)
I used, or maybe misused, the term open source. You used “free”. The license & project used neither, and made no claim to align with opensource.org’s philosophy or definition. Whatever you call it, the source code has been released for anyone to read and “evaluate”, that’s what I meant by ‘open’.
You didn’t answer the question - how is this sneaky, and how does it prevent using previous projects?
The Open Source Initiative coined the term to begin with. Using it incorrectly is harmful, and is how we've ended up with "literally" meaning "figuratively" in modern English. By insisting on the correct definition, I'm trying to prevent the same from happening to open source. It's pretty offensive to act like it's not a big deal to use something so essential to computing freedom in a cavalier way to intentionally lessen freedom.
Can't copyright an inferred artifact ;)